Hello, The names in the subject line tripped me up. Is this intentional?
In particular, looking at the proof 2p2e4, the first unification is oveq1i.1=df-2, which is followed by it's parent eqtr4i.1=oveq2i. The mismatch between the deduction name and its hypothesis name confused me for a bit. However, since 2p2e4 is exhibited as an example in the MPE, I would be a bit surprised if this just happened to be an unnoticed error. Just in case, I also confirmed the above against HEAD on the develop branch (commit 2ebe15d3 at the time). Forgive the spam if I am just missing something obvious. Cheers, B. Wilson -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/20191025084102.GA9954%40lang.
